Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16522-16540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06663]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 15 and 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0176; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB29
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Scarlet-Chested Parrot and the Turquoise Parrot From the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the scarlet-chested parrot (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise
parrot (Neophema pulchella) from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Our review of the status of these parrots shows that the
threats have been eliminated or reduced and populations of both species
are stable, with potential increases noted for the turquoise parrot in
some areas. These species are not currently in danger of extinction,
and are not likely to again become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future in all or significant portions of their ranges.
After the effective date of this final rule, the scarlet-chested and
the turquoise parrots will remain protected under the provisions of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). To date, the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots
remain on the Approved List of Captive-bred Species under the Wild Bird
Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA).
DATES: This rule becomes effective May 5, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public
inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-
2015-0176. Comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking will be available by appointment during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone, 703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-
358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone,
703-358-2171; facsimile, 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This document contains a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested
parrot and the turquoise parrot from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
[[Page 16523]]
Purpose of the regulatory action--We are delisting the scarlet-
chested parrot and the turquoise parrot throughout their ranges due to
recovery under the Act. Species experts now widely characterize
populations of the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot as
stable, with potential increases noted for the turquoise parrot in some
areas. Trade in wild specimens is strictly regulated under Australia's
national laws as well as through CITES, the Lacey Act Amendments of
1981, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), and the WBCA (16 U.S.C.
4901-4916).
Basis for the regulatory action--Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered species or threatened species because of
any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We must consider the same factors in
delisting a species. We may delist a species if the best scientific and
commercial data indicate the species is neither endangered nor
threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or
endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the
species was classified were in error. We consider both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots to be ``recovered'' because threats to
these parrots have been reduced or eliminated, and populations of both
species are now stable, with potential increases noted for the
turquoise parrot in some areas.
Peer review and public comment--We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our determination that these species have
recovered is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our status
reviews for the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot. We
also considered all comments and information received during the
reopening of the comment period (see Previous Federal Actions, below).
Previous Federal Actions
The scarlet-chested and the turquoise parakeets of the genus
Neophema are listed under the Act, as endangered throughout their
entire ranges. The scarlet-chested parakeet was listed on December 2,
1970 (35 FR 18319). The turquoise parakeet was listed on June 2, 1970
(35 FR 8491). Both species were originally listed under the Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275 (1969))
as part of a list of species classified as endangered. This list was
retained and incorporated into the Act, and both species have remained
listed as endangered under the Act since that time. In addition, both
species were included by regulation in the Approved List of Captive-
bred Bird Species under the WBCA in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at 50 CFR 15.33. The WBCA Approved List includes bird
species that are in the appendices of CITES, and which occur in
international trade only as captive-bred specimens. (Both species are
listed on the WBCA Approved List and in the CITES appendices as
``parrots''; we use the term ``parrots'' in this final rule for reasons
set forth below in Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule.) Captive-
bred individuals of species on the WBCA Approved List may be imported
or exported without a WBCA permit. For additional information regarding
protections under the Act and WBCA, please see Existing regulatory
mechanisms, below.
On September 22, 2000, we announced a review of all endangered and
threatened foreign species in the Order Psittaciformes (parrots,
parakeets, macaws, cockatoos, and others; also known as psittacine
birds) listed under the Act (65 FR 57363). Section 4(c)(2) of the Act
requires such a review at least once every 5 years. The purpose of the
review is to ensure that the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(List), found in 50 CFR 17.11, accurately reflects the most current
status information for each listed species. We requested comments and
the most current scientific or commercial information available on
these species, as well as information on other species that may warrant
future consideration for listing. If the current classification of a
species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial
information available at the conclusion of a review, we may propose
changes to the List accordingly. Based on the 2000 review, one
commenter suggested that we reevaluate the listing of the scarlet-
chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and provided enough scientific
information, including information and correspondence with Australian
Government officials, to merit our further review of these species.
On September 2, 2003, we published a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to
remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under
the Act because the endangered designation no longer correctly
reflected the current conservation status of these birds. On January
21, 2016, we announced the reopening of the public comment period on
our September 2, 2003, proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and
turquoise parakeets from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions
to determine whether removing these species from the List is still
warranted, and to ensure that we sought, received, and made our
decision based on the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding these species and their status and threats.
Background
This is a final rule to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise
parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This final rule contains updated information from the information
presented in the proposed rule to remove these species from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (68 FR 52169, September 2,
2003) and is based on the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding these species and their status and threats.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
This final rule includes information summarized from status reviews
we conducted in 2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise
parrots. These status reviews are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176.
Sections from the status reviews were added (in part or entirely)
to the preamble to this final rule. These new sections in the preamble
are updates or additions to information that was presented in the 2003
proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the
list (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003). We made changes to Previous
Federal Actions, Summary of Status Review, and Significant Portion of
Its Range Analysis. More detailed information about both parrots is in
our 2016-2017 status reviews.
In earlier rulemaking documents we used the common names ``scarlet-
chested parakeet'' and ``turquoise parakeet'' for Neophema splendida
and N. pulchella, respectively. However, both CITES and the WBCA use
the common names ``scarlet-chested parrot'' and ``turquoise parrot,''
and these common names are also used widely in the range country of
Australia, and in the scientific literature. Therefore, we have adopted
the use of the term ``parrot'' instead of ``parakeet'' in the
[[Page 16524]]
common name for these species in this final rule and in our 2016-2017
status reviews.
When these two species were included in the Approved List of
Captive-bred Bird Species under the WBCA, the Service footnoted the
species that require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17 for importation
or other prohibited acts to avoid any confusion for the public (59 FR
62255, 62261-63; December 2, 1994). With this final rule, these two
species will no longer require an ESA permit under 50 CFR part 17.
Accordingly, in order to avoid confusion, in this final rule we are
also amending 50 CFR 15.33(a) simply to make technical corrections to
delete the informational footnote superscripts from the entries for
these two species and to reflect that the informational footnote now
applies to only one species on the WBCA Approved List. These changes
are being made with this final rule because they are noncontroversial
actions necessary for clarity and consistency that are in the best
interest of the public and should be undertaken in as timely a manner
as possible.
Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Summary of Status Review
Taxonomy
Both the scarlet-chested (Neophema splendida) parrot and the
turquoise parrot (N. pulchella) belong to the genus Neophema, which
contains six species, all native to Australia. Both Birdlife
International (BLI 2016 a&b, unpaginated) and the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS 2016 a&b, unpaginated) recognize the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots as distinct full species. We have
reviewed the available information and conclude that the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots are valid full species in a multispecies
genus.
Species Description
The scarlet-chested parrot is a relatively small, very colorful
parrot found in the dry central portions of southern Australia. Adult
size is approximately 19-21 centimeters (cm) (7.5-8.3 inches (in)) in
length (Higgins 1999, p. 585). The male scarlet-chested parrot is
bright green above with yellow below. The face, throat, and cheeks are
blue, and flight feathers are also edged in blue (BLA 2016a,
unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Males are easily distinguished from
females by their scarlet chest; the chest of the female is light green
(BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 585). Juvenile birds are
similar in appearance to the female (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384), but
colors are somewhat duller (BLA 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p.
585)
Biology
The scarlet-chested parrot inhabits open woodlands or shrublands
among sand plains of the dry inland portions of the Australian
``outback'' or ``rangelands.'' Typical vegetation in these shrublands
includes Eucalyptus species (mallee), Acacia aneura (mulga), or
Eucalyptus salubris (gimlet), usually with sparse spinifex (Triodia
species; hummock grass) ground cover (Collar 2016a, unpaginated;
Forshaw 1989, p. 288; Jarman, 1968, p. 111). The term ``mallee'' can
mean both: (1) The various low-growing shrubby Eucalyptus species and
(2) areas of shrub that are dominated by mallee bushes, typical of some
arid parts of Australia. Throughout this document, we use the term
``mallee'' to refer to the former and ``mallee shrubland'' to refer to
the latter. Similarly, we use the term Acacia shrublands to refer to
arid landscapes dominated by Acacia species.
The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to country that is usually
waterless, with average annual rainfall less than 25 cm (10 in) (Jarman
1968, p. 111). It is frequently found far from water and is thought to
obtain moisture by drinking dew or eating succulent (water-storing)
plants (NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; Jarman 1968, p.
111). The species feeds primarily on grass seeds (Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 367; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384) and seeds from Acacia
species and herbaceous and succulent plants found near or on the ground
(BLA 2016a, unpaginated; NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288;
Jarman 1968, p. 111). The scarlet-chested parrot appears to favor areas
that have been recently burned and are regenerating for forage (Collar
2016a, unpaginated; BLA 2012, unpaginated; del Hoyo et al. 1997 p. 384;
Robinson et al. 1990, p. 11).
The species is described as nomadic--birds will appear in an area,
nest for several years, and then disappear again (Collar 2016a,
unpaginated; Rowden pers. comm. 2016; Higgins 1999, p. 587; Juniper and
Parr, 1998, p. 366; Forshaw 1989, p. 288; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p.
384). The species is also described as ``irruptive,'' meaning that it
is capable of building up large numbers in response to favorable
environmental conditions (Andrew and Palliser 1993, as cited in Snyder
et al. 2000, p. 57; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). However, in general,
movements or patterns of abundance for the scarlet-chested parrot are
not well understood (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 587).
The scarlet-chested parrot is typically seen in isolated pairs or
small groups of fewer than 10 birds (Forshaw 1989, p. 288), but larger
flocks have been reported outside of the breeding season (NSW 2014a,
unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p. 588; Forshaw 1989, p. 288). Age at
maturity is about 3 years (Garnett & Crowley 2000a, p. 346), and
generation time is estimated at 4.9 years (BLI 2012a, p. 8). The
species breeds mostly from August through January, but timing likely
depends on rain events and resultant food availability (BLA 2016a,
unpaginated; Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288).
Woodland and shrubland tree hollows (e.g., hollows in Eucalyptus
species) are important for nesting and may be a limiting habitat
feature for the scarlet-chested parrot in some areas (see Competition
for nesting hollows and food, below). The scarlet-chested parrot lays
four to six eggs on a bed of wood dust or debris in tree hollows (BLA
2016a, unpaginated; Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 288).
The female incubates the eggs, but both the male and female rear the
young (AFD 2014, unpaginated, Hutchins and Lovell, 1985 as cited in
Higgins 1999, p. 589). Incubation lasts for about 18 days, and the
nestling period is about 30 days (Forshaw 1989, p. 288). The species is
thought to raise just one brood per season (Jarman 1968, p. 118) but
may produce two broods under good conditions (Sindel and Gill undated
as cited in Higgins 1999, p. 589), consistent with irruptive species
population ecology.
Distribution
This species once had a wide distribution (Juniper and Parr 1998,
p. 366) within the drier portions of southern Australia from the west
coast of Australia to the western portions of New South Wales (Higgins,
1999, pp. 585-586).
Today, the population is sparsely distributed across the arid
interior of southern Australia, ranging from approximately Kalgoorlie
(Western Australia) to western portions of New South Wales in the east
and as far north as southern portions of the Northern Territory (NSW
2014a, unpaginated). The species is primarily concentrated in the
better vegetated areas of the Great Victoria Desert located in
southwestern Australia (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998,
p. 366).
The estimated distribution of the scarlet-chested parrot is very
large (262,000 km\2\ (101,159 mi\2\); BLI 2016a, unpaginated). However,
there appears to be a reduction in the extent of the historical range
in the west within the
[[Page 16525]]
vicinity of the Western Australian goldfields, with just one record
from the west coast since 1854 (Dymond in litt. 2001, as cited in BLI
2016a, unpaginated). Similarly, reductions have been noted in the east
with fewer records from New South Wales in the 20th than in the 19th
century (BLI 2016a, unpaginated), and no confirmed records from
Victoria since 1995 (Clarke in litt. 2016).
The scarlet-chested parrot at one point historically was thought to
have gone extinct, as a result of no sightings of this species for
upwards of 20 to 60 years (Jarman 1968, p. 111; Anon. 1932, p. 538).
The current population has not been quantified, but it is estimated to
be larger than 10,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012a, p. 1); and
population trends appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in
the last 20 years (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; BLI 2012a, p. 4). The
population does not appear to be fragmented, and subpopulations can
travel great distances (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57).
Captive-Bred Specimens
The scarlet-chested parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade
and may number between 10,000 and 25,000 held in captivity in Australia
alone (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366; del
Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 384), although estimates of the size of the
captive population after the late 1990s could not be found.
Conservation Status
The scarlet-chested parrot was listed in CITES Appendix I in 1975,
but transferred to Appendix II in 1977 (UNEP 2011a, unpaginated). The
Order Psittaciformes was listed as a whole in Appendix II in 1981 (UNEP
2011a, unpaginated). Listing in CITES Appendix II allows for regulated
international commercial trade based on certain findings.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN)--In 1988, the scarlet-chested parrot was listed as
``Threatened'' on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species (BLI 2012a,
p. 1). The species was recategorized as ``Vulnerable'' in 1994, to
``Lower Risk'' in 2000, and to ``Least Concern'' in 2004; the status
remains at ``Least Concern'' (BLI 2012a, p. 1).
Australia
Commercial exports of the scarlet-chested parrot from Australia
have been prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in
Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act). The scarlet-chested parrot is not included in the EPBC
Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated).
Inclusion on EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery via:
(1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC Act's
assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The scarlet-
chested parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna either
because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was
nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment
of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett
and Crowley 2000a, p. 346) listed the scarlet-chested parrot nationally
as ``Least Concern,'' but this designation was removed in the 2010
Action Plan (Garnett et al. 2011, entire). As such, there is no
national recovery plan for the scarlet-chested parrot, though
recommended actions were outlined for the species in the 2000 Action
Plan (Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). There was no justification
provided for the removal of the scarlet-chested parrot from the 2010
Action Plan. Justification was provide for removal of the turquoise
parrot form the 2010 Action Plan, which noted that the population was
too large to be considered ``near threatened'' and that there was no
evidence of a recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). We assume
that similar criteria were considered for the removal of the scarlet-
chested parrot from the 2010 Action Plan.
At the state level, the scarlet-chested parrot is listed as ``Near
threatened'' in the Northern Territory (NT GOV 2016, unpaginated), and
``Rare'' in South Australia (South Australia 2016, unpaginated). It
does not appear on the list of threatened fauna in Western Australia
(WAG 2015, unpaginated). Although sightings are rare in New South
Wales, the State has listed the scarlet-chested parrot as
``Vulnerable'' and has identified management actions for its
conservation (NSW 2014a, unpaginated). The species is currently listed
as ``Threatened'' in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act
1988 (FFG Act 2016, p. 3; Vic DSE 2013, p. 12), although there have
been no confirmed records there since 1995 (Clarke in litt. 2016).
Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the scarlet-chested
parrot are protected. For example, nearly 30 percent of the state of
South Australia is now in the Natural Reserve System, which includes
government reserves, indigenous protected areas, private protected
areas, and jointly managed protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated).
Reserve lands in South Australia include portions of the Great Victoria
Desert, a primary concentration area for the scarlet-chested parrot.
Also, nearly 22 percent of Western Australia, 19 percent of the
Northern Territory, 9 percent of New South Wales, and 18 percent of
Victoria are part of the Natural Reserve System (CAPAD 2014,
unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the degree to which the
Natural Reserve System protects the scarlet-chested parrot and its
habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our determination
of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of threatened or
endangered.
Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot
The following paragraphs provide a summary of the past, current,
and potential future stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot and its
habitats. In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both
parrot species for efficiency.
Land Clearing in Australia
In this section, we consider the term ``land clearing'' to mean the
removal of Australian native vegetation for agriculture, development,
or other purposes (COAG 2012, p. 2). Thus, we consider clearing of the
native habitats occupied by both the scarlet-chested and turquoise
parrots as ``land clearing,'' including clearing of forests, woodlands,
scrub- or shrublands, and grasslands. When Europeans began colonizing
Australia in the late 18th century, approximately 30 percent of the
continent was covered in forest (Barson et al. 2000 as cited in
Bradshaw 2012, p. 110). Since colonization, Australia has lost nearly
40 percent of its forests, and much of the remaining vegetation is
highly fragmented (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109). In the late 18th and the
early 19th centuries, deforestation occurred mainly on the most fertile
soils closest to the coast (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109). Land clearing
continues in more recent timeframes--with Australia having the sixth
highest annual rate of land clearing in the world from 1990 to 2000
(Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 230).
Although land clearing is listed as a ``key threatening process''
under the EPBC Act (Australian DEE 2016a, unpaginated), the
Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over state actions (Lindenmayer and
Burgman 2005, p. 233). Throughout this document, the term ``key
threatening process'' means a ``threatening process that threatens or
[[Page 16526]]
may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a
native species or ecological community'' (EPBC Act; Australian DEE
2016b, unpaginated).
Land Clearing and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Europeans settled Australia's semi-arid or arid landscapes (i.e.,
areas used by the scarlet-chested parrot) 150 years ago (Benson et al.
2001, p. 26). Determining impacts to the scarlet-chested parrot from
land clearing is not straightforward, partly because the area known to
be available to the parrot is large (BLI 2012, p. 1), and the parrot is
capable of traveling great distances (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57).
Habitat clearing has caused major losses of the mallee shrublands used
by the scarlet-chested parrot in some areas, such as in southern South
Australia and northwestern Victoria, but large fragments remain (CAPAD
2014, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). Overgrazing by
exotic herbivores (i.e., cattle, sheep, and rabbits) and resultant
vegetation modification is also attributed to the decline of many arid-
zone birds (Reid and Fleming, 1992, pp. 65, 80), though trends for the
scarlet-chested parrot are less discernible due, in part, to their use
of remote desert regions (Garnett 1992 as cited in Reid and Fleming,
1992, p. 74). Clearance and harvesting of mallee shrublands and Acacia
shrublands affects nest hollow availability (NSW 2014a, unpaginated;
Joseph 1988, p. 273), although the extent of the impacts to the
scarlet-chested parrot is unknown.
Fire in Australia
Fire is an essential component of Australia's natural environment.
The indigenous people of Australia learned to live in a fire-prone
environment and used fire as a primary land management tool (Whelan et
al. 2006, p. 1). When early Europeans arrived, they feared and fought
bushfires (wildfires) but used managed fires to clear native vegetation
for agriculture (Whelan et al. 2006, p. 1). Today, land managers use
fire for biodiversity conservation, to promote pasture production, and
for the protection of life, property, and other assets (e.g., to manage
fuel loads and prevent wildfire) (Whelan et al. 2006, p. 1). Fire is
also an important process in the formation of tree hollows used for
nesting species, such as the scarlet-chested parrot. Australia lacks
primary tree excavator species, such as woodpeckers, so hollows are
generally started by fire or limb loss, and hollow formation continues
over long time periods via invertebrates, fungi, or bacteria (Haslem et
al. 2012, p. 213).
Altered Fire Regimes and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Frequency, extent, and intensity of wildfires appear to be
increasing across most of the scarlet-chested parrot's range (see
Climate change in Australia, below). The role these increases play in
the ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot is difficult to discern. The
scarlet-chested parrot uses and prefers recently burned and
regenerating areas for forage (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; BLA 2012,
unpaginated; del Hoyo et al., 1997 p. 384; Robinson et al. 1990, p.
11). However, altered fire regimes (e.g., more frequent fire intervals)
have probably been detrimental in some areas (BLI 2016a, unpaginated;
Collar 2016a, unpaginated; NSW 2014a, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley
2000a, p. 346). Woodland birds of the mallee shrublands, occupied by
the scarlet-chested parrot in a large portion of its range, are
sensitive to altered fire regimes (Clarke in litt. 2016). Time-since-
fire (and resultant older vegetation stages) are important variables
for species richness (Taylor et al. 2012, entire) and occupancy (Clarke
in litt. 2016, Brown et al. 2009, entire; Clarke et al. 2005, pp. 174,
178, 179) in mallee shrublands.
Long fire-free periods are important in the formation of tree
hollows (Haslem et al. 2012, entire), which the parrots depend upon for
breeding. Mid- to late-successional stages of vegetation (greater than
20 years) are important to many bird species in semi-arid shrublands in
southeastern Australia (Watson et al. 2012, p. 685). More frequent fire
intervals can prevent these stages from occurring.
In summary, although habitat loss and degradation has occurred in
the arid and semi-arid habitat occupied by the scarlet-chested parrot
over the last 150 years, the degree to which land clearing for
agriculture, overgrazing by introduced herbivores and altered fire
regimes have acted on, are presently acting on, or will act on the
scarlet-chested parrot in the foreseeable future, is difficult to
assess. Mallee shrublands in southern South Australia and northwestern
Victoria have been lost, but large fragments remain (CAPAD 2014,
unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000a, p. 346). Availability of nest
hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over the long
term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Although habitat destruction and
modification is a likely stressor for the scarlet-chested parrot, we do
not consider it to be a major stressor to the species throughout its
entire range now or in the foreseeable future because the scarlet-
chested parrot has evolved in dynamic environmental conditions, the
area available to the parrot is large, and the parrot is capable of
traveling great distances.
Illegal Collection and Trade (for Both Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise
Parrots)
Trapping or nest robbing of scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots
for the caged bird industry may have been a significant stressor in the
past (NSW 2014a&b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, pp. 587 & 576), but
current rates of trapping are unknown. It may no longer be much of a
stressor because these species are readily captive-bred and kept in
large numbers (Garnett 1992 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57).
However, if illegal trapping is still occurring, it could be
significant in some areas if only a small number of birds are present
(NSW 2014a, unpaginated). For example, the scarlet-chested parrot was
the subject of illegal bird trappers at Gluepot Reserve in eastern
South Australia in the 1970s, where there may be a small resident
population (MacKenzie in litt. 2016). Additionally, practices used in
illegal trapping can destroy nest hollows (NSW 2014b, unpaginated;
Baker-Gabb 2011, p. 10). Both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots
are still thought to be illegally trapped at some level (NSW 2014a&b,
unpaginated), but trapping is no longer thought to be a major stressor
(Garnett 1992 as cited in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57; Joseph 1988, p.
274).
Legislation by the states within these species' range prohibits, or
limits by permit, the capture of these species from the wild (See
Existing regulatory mechanisms, below). Legitimate state permit holders
(such as zoos, breeders, or pet shops) must prove that they are
qualified to care for the animals and keep detailed records in a
logbook (Barry 2011, unpaginated). However, the limited permissions for
removal of wildlife and associated recordkeeping are, at times, abused.
A practice called ``leaving the book open'' is a common way to launder
wildlife--where permit holders sometimes head to the bush to replace a
permitted animal that died, or pass off a wild animal as captive-bred
(Barry 2011, unpaginated). Although there are thousands of state
wildlife permit infringements and seizures each year in Australia, only
a small number go to court (e.g., as few as 12 cases per year), and
punishments across the states vary (Barry 2011, unpaginated). Under
Australian Federal law, maximum fines for wildlife permit violations
are $110,000 AUS ($83,194 US) and 10 years in prison, but across the
states,
[[Page 16527]]
penalties range from $220,000 AUS ($158,824 US) and 2 years jail in New
South Wales to $10,000 AUS ($7,563 US) and no jail time in Western
Australia (Barry 2011, unpaginated).
International trade in wild-caught specimens is strictly limited by
domestic regulation (in Australia) and through additional national and
international treaties and laws (See Existing regulatory mechanisms,
below). However, the fact that so many species of native Australian
birds have appeared overseas during the years of prohibition is
evidence that some smuggling has been successful (Parliament of
Australia 2016, unpaginated).
Despite domestic and international protections for wild birds,
captive-bred scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are widely
available, and their market value is relatively low compared to other
species of parrots, especially for birds sold in Australia. Scarlet-
chested parrots sold in Australia are valued at approximately $20 to
$50 AUS ($15 to $38 US) (Findads.com 2016, unpaginated). Prices for
scarlet-chested parrots in the United States are approximately five
times higher, or more--approximately $99 to $165 AUS ($75 to $125 US)
(Hoobly Classifieds 2016, unpaginated). Market value for turquoise
parrots is lower--approximately $15 AUS ($11 US) for birds sold in
Australia and $50 AUS ($38 US) for birds sold overseas (Parliament of
Australia 2016, unpaginated).
Levels of Legal International Trade (for the Scarlet-Chested Parrot)
Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild scarlet-chested
parrots in trade. There were 22,612 recorded exports of the species in
international trade (19,337 recorded as imports). Of these, only 32
specimens were recorded as exports from Australia (7 recorded as
imported). With few exceptions, specimens in trade were captive-bred
for the pet trade. Within this same time period there were 295 recorded
imports (and 168 recorded exports) to the United States. Of those
imports, 23 specimens were confiscated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (UNEP 2016a).
In summary, poaching for the pet trade may be occurring at a low
level that is not likely to affect wild populations. Small, possibly
resident, subpopulations may face some risk from poaching, but we are
not aware of any significant poaching since the 1970s. Nor are we aware
of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes is a stressor to the scarlet-
chested parrot.
Disease (for Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise Parrots)
Information regarding diseases and their potential effect to wild
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots is limited. Psittacine beak and
feather disease (PBFD) is a viral disease that occurs in a fatal form
and a chronic form in both old and new world parrots (Fogell et al.
2016, pp. 2059 and 2060). In 2001, PBFD was listed as a ``key
threatening process affecting endangered psittacine species'' (Peters
et al. 2014, p. 289; Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). Cases of PBFD
are pervasive in Australia, having been reported in more than 61
psittacine species (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated).
The virus particularly affects juveniles or young adults, but all
ages are susceptible (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). The chronic
form of PBFD results in feather, beak, and skin abnormalities, with
most birds eventually dying (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated).
Symptoms of the acute form of PBFD include feather abnormalities and
diarrhea, with death likely within 1 to 2 weeks (Australian DEH 2004,
unpaginated). PBFD is readily transmitted through contact with
contaminated feces, feather dust, crop secretions, surfaces, or objects
(Gerlach 1994 as cited in Ritchie et al. 2003, p.109) and can also be
passed directly from a female to her young (Fogell et al. 2016, p.
2060).
PBFD can probably survive for many years in tree hollows and other
nest sites (Australian DEH 2004, unpaginated). To date, the disease has
not been reported for the scarlet-chested or turquoise parrots (Fogell
et al. 2016, pp. 2063-2065), but recent phylogenetic analyses of the
virus indicate that all endangered Australian psittacine birds are
susceptible to, and equally likely to be infected by, the disease
(Raidal et al. 2015, p. 466). PBFD may be less of a danger to larger,
non-threatened populations of Australian psittacine species because
they are generally better able to sustain losses to the disease, and
individuals that survive infection develop immunity (Australian DEH
2004, unpaginated). Because PBFD is so pervasive in Australia, scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots are likely susceptible, but population
sizes (i.e., approximately 10,000 scarlet-chested and 20,000 turquoise
parrots) may provide some resiliency from the disease.
Predation From Non-Native Cats and Foxes in Australia
Nonnative cats (Felis catus) were introduced and became established
soon after European settlement and are now found throughout mainland
Australia (Australian DEE 2015, p. 7). Predation by feral cats was
identified as a key threatening process in 1999 (Australian DEE 2015,
p. 5). In response, a feral cat threat abatement plan was developed by
the Australian Government in 2008, and the most recent plan was
published in 2015. It establishes a national framework for cat control,
research, management, and other actions needed to ensure the long-term
survival of native species and ecological communities affected by feral
cats (Australian DEE 2015, p. 5).
The non-native European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was introduced in
the mid-1800s and now occupies much of mainland Australia (Australian
DSEWP&C 2010, unpaginated), including the range of the scarlet-chested
and turquoise parrots. Predation by the European red fox is listed by
the Australian Government as a key threatening process in 1999
(Australian DEE 2015, p. 5). In response, the Australian Government
developed a threat abatement plan that outlines conventional control
techniques such as shooting, poisoning, and fencing as well as research
and management actions (Australian DSEWP&C 2010, unpaginated). To date,
it is not known if these efforts are resulting in a reduction in these
predators.
Predation and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Predation by feral cats and European red foxes could be a stressor
for the scarlet-chested parrot, but the degree of predation is not
known. Both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot were assessed as
``high risk'' from these predators within the rangeland environment in
the Western Division of New South Wales based on variables such as
predator density, body weight, habitat use, and behavior (Dickman et
al. 1996, p. 249). The Western Division of New South Wales represents
the eastern edge of the current distribution of the scarlet-chested
parrot. Additionally, the night parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis), which
shares some habitat (Triodia grass) with the scarlet-chested parrot,
may have experienced a decline partly due to nonnative predators such
as foxes and cats (Joseph 1988, p. 274). Lastly, the provisioning of
water for livestock has made some areas that were, perhaps, once too
dry for these predators more hospitable. However, we did not find any
information indicating that predation by foxes and cats is affecting
the scarlet-chested parrot.
[[Page 16528]]
Competition for Nesting Hollows and Food
Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit
reproductive success by limiting the number of pairs that can breed, or
by causing nest mortality as a result of competitive interactions. All
but four species of Australian parrots are dependent on tree hollows
for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58), and at least 14 species of parrots
are known to use mallee shrublands (Schodde, 1990, p. 61). Availability
of nest hollows in the dwindling mallee shrublands is a concern over
the long term (Joseph 1988, p. 273). Additionally, the provisioning of
water for livestock in semi-arid and arid rangelands may have caused
increases and competitive advantage (e.g., for food and nest hollows)
to more water-dependent parrots (Collar 2016a, unpaginated; Garnett and
Crowley 2000a, p. 346; del Hoyo et al., 1997, p. 384). National
legislation, policy, and strategic management plans are in place to
protect hollow-bearing trees in Australia; however, prioritization and
implementation of actions at the local level may be limited or lacking
(Treby et al. 2014, entire).
In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential
stressors for the scarlet-chested parrot. Although PBFD has not been
confirmed in the scarlet-chested parrot, it is likely susceptible to
the disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or
pathogens that affect the wild population. Predation and competition
may be occurring at low levels. Disease, predation, and competition do
not appear to be significant stressors to the species because
populations of the scarlet-chested parrot appear to be stable with an
estimated 10,000 individuals and no evidence of decline in the past 20
years.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms (for Both Scarlet-Chested and Turquoise
Parrots)
In Australia, legislation from all states within these species'
range prohibits, or limits by permit, the capture of the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots from the wild. Commercial exports of
these species from Australia have been banned since 1962. The
prohibition is now codified under the EPBC Act. Individuals who violate
this act, for example to export native species for commercial reasons,
can face serious penalties, such as lengthy imprisonment and hefty
fines.
These species are listed in Appendix II of CITES (50 CFR 23.91).
CITES, an international agreement between governments, ensures that the
international trade of CITES-listed plants and animals does not
threaten the survival of the species in the wild. Under this treaty,
CITES Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens,
parts, and products of CITES-listed plants and animals (CITES 2016,
unpaginated). Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and
Management Authorities of each CITES Party (CITES 2016, unpaginated).
The United States implements CITES through the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any
specimens contrary to the provisions of CITES, or to possess any
specimens traded contrary to the provisions of CITES, the Act, or part
23. Protections for CITES-listed species are provided independently of
whether a species is a threatened species or endangered species under
the Act.
In the United States, the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are
currently listed as endangered and protected by the Act. Conservation
measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under
the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing
results in public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal and State governments, private agencies and interest
groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or upon
the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be
listed or is listed as endangered or threatened. Specifically, section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure those actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. However, because foreign species are not
native to the United States, critical habitat is not designated.
Regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to
provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the
training of personnel.
Section 9(a)(1) of the Act and our implementing regulations set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United
States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any
means whatsoever, in the course of commercial activity; or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Under section 10 of the Act, permits may be issued to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered species under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a
permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species and for
incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide
protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United
States: the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the Lacey Act. The
WBCA was passed in 1992 to ensure that exotic bird species are not
harmed by international trade and to encourage wild bird conservation
programs in countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United
States any exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain
circumstances. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may issue permits to
allow import of listed birds for scientific research, zoological
breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes
when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25). All
Neophema are protected under the WBCA (USFWS 2004). The WBCA allows
import into the United States of captive-bred birds of certain species
[[Page 16529]]
included in the WBCA Approved List (50 CFR 15.33), such as scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots, which meet the following criteria (50
CFR 15.31):
(a) All specimens of the species known to be in trade (legal or
illegal) must be captive bred;
(b) No specimens of the species may be removed from the wild for
commercial purposes;
(c) Any importation of the species must not be detrimental to the
survival of the species in the wild; and
(d) Adequate enforcement controls must be in place to ensure
compliance with paragraphs (a) through (c).
The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900 and was the first
Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal
penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey
Act, in part, it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell,
receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold: (1) In violation of any law, treaty, or
regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal
law, or (2) in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife
taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or
regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. Therefore,
for example, because the take of wild-caught Australian parrots would
be in violation of Australia's EPBC Act, the subsequent import of such
parrots would be in violation of the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the
Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive,
acquire, or purchase specimens of these species traded contrary to
CITES.
In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms
governing collection and trade of wild scarlet-chested parrots. While
we note the conservation measures that would no longer be in place
under the Act as a result of a delisting, such as the prohibitions on
take within the United States or on the high seas, and import, export,
or re-export into or out of the United States, we did not rely on the
conservation measures provided by a listing under the Act in reaching
our determination of whether or not the species meets the definition of
threatened or endangered. As described above, the EPBC Act (which
controls commercial export), Lacey Act, CITES, and WBCA all provide
protection to scarlet-chested parrots that minimize or eliminate
threats from trade to the species independently of the listing of the
species under the Act. Thus, we do not expect declines in the species
due to the removal of the protections of the Act. As discussed under
the other sections in Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, we
do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its
habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulatory
mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at
protecting the species at a domestic and global level.
Small Population Size
We discussed the nomadic behavior and the irruptive species
population ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot in the Biology section
above and noted that the species can experience range contractions and
low numbers (Runge et al. 2014, pp. 870, 874). Although the current
population has not been quantified, it is estimated to be larger than
10,000 mature individuals (BLI 2012a, p. 1); and population trends
appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in the last 20 years
(BLI 2016a, unpaginated; BLI 2012a, p. 4). Because the scarlet-chested
parrot can experience large range contractions and low numbers, we
considered whether small population size in combination with other
stressors might act as a stressor to the species. Small populations are
generally at greater risk of extinction from habitat loss, predation,
disease, loss of genetic diversity, and stochastic (random)
environmental events such as wildfire and floods.
Species that naturally occur in low densities, however, are not
necessarily in danger of extinction merely by virtue of their rarity.
Many naturally rare species have persisted for long periods, and many
naturally rare species exhibit traits (e.g., nomadic behavior and
irruptive species population ecology of the scarlet-chested parrot)
that allow them to persist despite their small population sizes.
Consequently, the fact that a species is rare or has small populations
alone does not indicate that it may be in danger of extinction now or
in the foreseeable future. Additional information beyond rarity is
needed to determine whether the species may warrant listing. In the
absence of information identifying stressors to the species and linking
those stressors to the rarity of the species or a declining status, we
do not consider rarity alone to be a threat. Further, a species that
has always had small population sizes or has always been rare, yet
continues to survive, could be well-equipped to continue to exist into
the future.
We considered specific potential stressors that may affect or
exacerbate rarity or small population size for the scarlet-chested
parrot. Although low genetic diversity could occur with some small
populations, the scarlet-chested parrot population is not known to be
fragmented (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57). We are not aware of any genetic
studies on the scarlet-chested parrot and have no evidence that low
genetic diversity is a problem for the species. Additionally, the
scarlet-chested parrot is capable of building up large numbers in
response to favorable environmental conditions, and has historically
survived changes to its habitat, including wildfire and other
stochastic events.
In summary, the best available information does not indicate that
lack of genetic variability and reduced fitness is acting on the
scarlet-chested parrot now or will do so in the future.
Global Climate Change
Described in general terms, ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over a long period
of time, which may be reported as decades, centuries, or thousands of
years. The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean
or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature,
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species, and these may be positive or negative
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the
effects of interactions with non-climate conditions (e.g., habitat
fragmentation). We use our expert judgment to weigh information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change that are relevant to the scarlet-chested and turquoise
parrots. Global climate change predictions include increases in
intensity and/or duration of heat waves and droughts, as well as
greater numbers of heavy precipitation events (IPCC 2013, p. 7).
Climate Change in Australia
Over the last century, Australia has experienced an average
increase of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F), with the most pronounced and rapid
warming occurring in eastern Australia from the 1950s to the present
(Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). Along with this
warming, there has been an increased frequency of hot days and nights,
and a decrease in cold days and nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw
2012, p. 116). Rainfall patterns have shifted over this period, with
decreased rainfall in the southeastern and southwestern regions and
increases in the northwest (Nicholls
[[Page 16530]]
and Lavery 1992 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116). An increase in
annual total rainfall of approximately 15 percent was experienced in
New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and the Northern Territory,
with little change in the other states (Hughes 2003, p. 424). In
eastern Australia, since 1973, drought periods are becoming hotter
(Nicholls 2004 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116).
Climate change projections for Australia show significant
vulnerability to changes in temperature and rainfall. The IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report identified agriculture and natural resources as two
key sectors likely to be strongly affected (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
Temperatures in Australia are projected to increase by 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-
9 [deg]F), depending on location and the emissions scenarios. The most
warming is projected for the dry interior of the continent,
particularly for the northwest (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
Accompanying these temperature increases will be an increase in the
frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
Rainfall projections for Australia are less reliable with some
dryer and wetter trends predicted within a large range of uncertainty
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Projections focusing on median rainfall
show a general pattern of drying across the continent, with the
strongest drying trends in the southwest and the weakest in the east
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Seasonal rainfall is expected to be
reduced in winter and spring in the south. Rainfall intensity is
expected to increase in most of the country, particularly in the north
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41). Frequency in the incidence of drought is
also expected to increase--with up to 40 percent more droughts
predicted for eastern Australia and 80 percent more droughts in the
southwest by 2070 (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
Climate Change and the Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Based on the information for Australia above, climate patterns over
the last century within the known range of the scarlet-chested parrot
included: (1) Increased average temperature of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F)
(Nicholls 2006 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (2) increased
frequency of hot days and warm nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw
2012, p. 116); (3) decreased rainfall in the southeastern and
southwestern regions (Nicholls and Lavery 1992 as cited in Bradshaw
2012, p. 116); and (4) increased annual total rainfall of approximately
15 percent in South Australia, New South Wales, the Northern Territory
and Victoria (Hughes 2003, p. 424). Similarly, a summary of climate
projections for areas within the known range of the scarlet-chested
parrot includes: (1) Temperature increase of 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-9 [deg]F)
with most warming in the dry interior (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); (2)
increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al.
2008, p. 41); (3) a large range of uncertainty for rainfall, but (using
median rainfall) a general pattern of drying, with less rain in the
spring and winter in the south, and increased intensity of rain,
particularly in the north (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); and (4)
increased frequency and intensity of drought (up to 40 percent in
eastern areas and 80 percent in the southwest by 2070) (Stokes et al.
2008, p. 41).
Habitats used by the scarlet-chested parrot will respond
differently to projected warmer and drier conditions and the variable
rain predictions. Habitats such as woodland areas used by the scarlet-
chested parrot that do not receive adequate rain to produce needed
fuels may actually see a decrease in fire frequency (Bradstock 2010, p.
145). However, fire frequency is likely to increase in areas with ample
fuel and connectivity, such as hummock grasses interspersed with shrubs
including mallee shrubland (Garnett et al. 2013a, p. 16).
Although there is still some variability in climate change
predictions for Australia, the increased warming and frequency and/or
intensity of droughts are of concern for the scarlet-chested parrot and
its habitats; however, the information at this time is too speculative
for us to draw conclusions as to the scale and timing of any effects.
Two recent studies analyzed the capacity of woodland birds in dry
woodlands and riparian areas in southeastern Australia to resist the
pressures of extended drought and then recover once drought conditions
abated (Selwood et al. 2015, entire; Bennet et al. 2014, entire).
Overall, these studies indicated long-term decline in the face of more
frequent and extended droughts in southeastern Australia (Selwood et
al. 2015, entire; Bennet et al. 2014, entire).
A recent climate-change-adaptation model using a ``Business as
Usual'' projection (i.e., the ``worst-case'' scenario with increasing
greenhouse gasses through time), predicted that the distribution of
climate, similar to that currently used by the species, may contract to
approximately one third of its current range by 2085, shifting suitable
habitat to more southerly portions of Western Australia and South
Australia (Garnett et al. 2013b, interactive model results). Although
the model does well to incorporate species-specific traits, it also
includes a number of uncertainties that may limit its predictive power
(Garnett et al. 2013, pp. 76-77). Basic model assumptions such as that
trends into the future will follow simple linear extrapolations of
existing relationships, and assumptions regarding (scaled down)
projected climate change itself, may limit its accuracy (Garnett et al.
2013, pp. 76-77). Given the variability in the existing climate and
uncertainties in modelling, it can be concluded that climate change
does not pose a substantial threat to the species in the next 50 years
based on current knowledge (Garnett in litt. 2016a).
The scarlet-chested parrot has evolved in a landscape where
environmental conditions are dynamic, and its nomadic strategies may
help it to recover from periods of range contraction and low numbers
(Runge et al. 2014, pp. 870, 874), but too rapid an environmental
change (e.g., from climate change effects) may outpace the species'
abilities to respond to spatial and temporal shifts (Runge et al. 2014,
pp. 870, 874).
In summary, effects from past and predicted climate change are
difficult to assess for the scarlet-chested parrot. Because it is
adapted to dry habitat, the parrot would likely fare better than more
water-dependent birds in times of drought. However, within areas of
increased rainfall, vegetation shifts may occur, fuel loads and
wildfire risk may be altered, and competition with water-dependent
species may increase. Although long-term range contraction was
indicated in the climate-change-adaptation model (Garnett et al. 2013b,
interactive model results), there are uncertainties in the model and
variability in the climate data on which it relies. Due to species'
adaptability to arid landscapes and ability to travel great distances,
climate change is not likely to be a major stressor for the scarlet-
chested parrot, within the next 50 years.
Turquoise Parrot
Summary of Status Review
Taxonomy--Please see Taxonomy section above, which includes
taxonomy for both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots.
Species Description
The turquoise parrot is a relatively small, colorful parrot found
in eastern and southeastern Australia. Adult size is approximately 20-
22 cm (7.9-8.7 in) in length (Higgins 1999, p. 573). Adult coloration
is primarily bright green
[[Page 16531]]
above with bright yellow below, with a bright blue face and shoulder
patch. Males are distinguished from females by a small red shoulder
band or patch and more blue on the face; the red shoulder patch and
blue facial coloration of juvenile males is less extensive than that of
adult males (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; NSW 2014b & 2009, unpaginated;
Higgins 1999, p. 573; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3; Jarman 1973, p.
240).
Biology
The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of eastern and
southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the Great
Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p.
345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). Typical habitat is hill country
including woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar
2016b, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Within this habitat, the
parrot prefers the transition zones between open and closed areas, such
as the edges of woodland adjoining grasslands and tree-lined creeks
(Collar 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286).
The turquoise parrot tends to feed on or near the ground (BLA
2016b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999b, p. 574; Quin and Reid 1996, p. 250),
usually under the cover of trees (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins
1999b, p. 574). The species also feeds in farmland, mainly pasture with
remnant trees (Higgins 1999, p. 574). The turquoise parrot must have
access to drinking water (Jarman 1973, p. 239), and its habitat usually
receives more than 38 cm (15 in) of annual rainfall (Jarman 1973, p.
240). The species feeds on a generalized diet of seeds from grasses,
herbaceous plants, and shrubs; it also feeds on flowers, nectar, fruit,
leaves, and scale-insects (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb
1993, p. 15). Turquoise parrots can exploit disturbed environments and
use a variety of colonizing plants as food sources (Quin and Baker-Gabb
1993, p. 27). The turquoise parrot eats from both native and non-native
plants, and researchers credit its ability to partially adapt to
modified habitats as contributing to its recovery (Quin 1990 as cited
in Quin and Reid 1996, p. 253).
Type and quality of the pasture land used for food is important.
Although the species can use partially modified habitats, use of highly
modified habitats, such as ``highly improved'' pasture, is less likely.
Improved pastures, in general, are sown with a proportion of non-native
plant species to promote productive growth of both the pasture and
grazing animals. Introduced non-native pasture species are usually
grasses, in combination with legumes. In a study of the species near
Chiltern, a town bordering the hill country in northeast Victoria,
almost all habitat types in forest and unimproved pasture were
potentially useful for feeding in at least one season. However, use of
highly improved pasture and cropped land was rare (Quin and Baker-Gabb
1993, p. 15).
The turquoise parrot is usually seen in pairs, in small groups, or,
in flocks of up to 30 birds (NSW 2014b, unpaginated; Higgins 1999, p.
574; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16). Rarer sightings of larger flocks
of 100 to 200 birds have also been reported (Higgins 1999, p. 574; Quin
and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16).The species is described as mainly
sedentary or resident with some post-breeding movement from woodland to
pastures (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 366), and some sporadic local
movement, likely related to rainfall (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383).
The turquoise parrot disperses mostly less than 10 kilometers (km) (6.2
miles (mi)), using the protection of treed corridors for dispersal (NSW
2009, unpaginated). The turquoise parrot reaches maturity at about 3
years of age (Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345).
The species breeds in pairs primarily from August to January with
some nesting noted in February, and even from April to May (Collar
2016b, unpaginated; Quin in litt. 2016; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 366;
del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383). Four to five eggs, and less commonly,
six or seven eggs, are laid in hollows of trees, stumps, fallen logs,
or even fence posts (Collar 2016b, unpaginated; Quin in litt. 2016;
Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383; Quin
and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 9; Forshaw 1989, p. 286; Juniper and Parr 1988,
p. 366; Jarman, 1973, p. 241), often within approximately 1-2 meters
(m) (3-6 feet (ft)) of the ground (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and
Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 9). The female incubates the eggs and is fed by the
male during incubation; both parents rear the chicks (BLA 2016b,
unpaginated). In some areas, the species will have two clutches per
year (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; NSW 2009, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 366). Incubation lasts about 18-20 days, followed by a
nestling period of about 30 days (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Juniper and
Parr 1998, p. 366; del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383). After fledging,
juveniles remain dependent on their parents for at least 1 week, and
continue to be fed by the male while the female begins a second clutch
(NSW 2009, unpaginated). Breeding productivity is estimated at 2.8
young per successful nest (NSW 2009, unpaginated).
Distribution
A little more than a century ago, the turquoise parrot was common
through many parts of eastern Australia, ranging from eastern
Queensland to south-central Victoria (Higgins 1999, p. 575; Jarman
1973, p. 239), though it is unknown whether the historical range was
continuous (Jarman 1973, p. 240). Between 1880 and 1920, the species
went through a major population crash with associated contractions in
its range (Quin and Reid 1966, p. 250; see below).
Although the turquoise parrot is still not found in central
Queensland, it is now distributed through much of its former range,
from southeastern Queensland through eastern New South Wales and into
Victoria (west to Bendigo, Victoria) (del Hoyo et al. 1997, p. 383;
Juniper and Parr 1989, pp. 365-366). The species' distribution is not
continuous but rather occurs in patches of suitable habitat throughout
this broader range (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286).
Based on distribution and density information (Barret et al. 2003 as
cited in NSW 2009, unpaginated), about 90 percent of the population is
thought to occur in New South Wales (NSW 2009, unpaginated).
The reasons for the turquoise parrot population crash between 1880
and 1920 are not fully understood. Likely contributing factors
included: (1) Habitat loss from European settlement, including
competition for food (grasses) from grazing livestock and rabbits, (2)
an intense period of drought from 1895 to 1902, and (3) trapping for
the pet trade (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; del Hoyo 1997, p. 383; Juniper
and Parr 1989, p. 365). Some have also suggested that disease may have
played a role because of the steep decline in numbers (Collar 2016b,
unpaginated, Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3;
Morse and Sullivan 1930, p. 289), but there is no evidence that disease
was a factor. Other potential factors were predation by the non-native
European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) and
indiscriminate shooting (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated).
The return of the turquoise parrot to portions of its former range
was reported by the 1930s and 1940s (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Higgins
1999, p. 575), though it did not reappear in Victoria until the 1950s
(Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). By the time we listed the species as
endangered under the Act in 1970, recovery was continuing and the
[[Page 16532]]
parrot was generally considered rare (Smith 1978 and IUCN 1966 & 1981
as cited in Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3). Further recovery during
the 1970s and 1980s was, in part, attributed to the removal of
livestock from reserve lands in northeastern Victoria (Quin and Baker-
Gabb 1993, p. 3). Increases in both numbers and range were apparent in
Victoria by the mid to late 1980s, though the species was still
regarded as rare (Traill 1988, p. 267). The global population of
turquoise parrots is currently estimated at 20,000 individuals (BLI
2012b, p. 1; Garnet and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Juniper and Parr, p.
366) and appears to be stable with increases reported in some areas
(BLI 2016b, unpaginated; Garnett & Crowley 2000b, p. 345).
Captive-Bred Specimens
The turquoise parrot is bred in captivity for the pet trade with
about 8,000 held in captivity in Australia (Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
366); estimates of the size of the captive population after the late
1990s could not be found.
Conservation Status
The turquoise parrot was listed in CITES Appendix III in 1976, as
part of a listing for the Family Psittacidae, and was later listed in
Appendix II in 1981, along with all Psittaciformes (UNEP 2011b,
unpaginated; see Conservation status for the scarlet-chested parrot
above for more information on implications of listing in CITES Appendix
II).
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN)--The turquoise parrot was listed on the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List
of Threatened and Endangered Species in 1988 as ``Lower Risk'' and
transferred to ``Least Concern'' in 2004; the status remains at ``Least
Concern'' (BLI 2012b, p. 1).
Australia
Commercial exports of the turquoise parrot from Australia have been
prohibited since 1962; these prohibitions are now codified in
Australia's EPBC Act. The turquoise parrot is not included in the EPBC
Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017a, unpaginated).
Inclusion on the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna promotes recovery
via: (1) Conservation advice, (2) recovery plans, and (3) the EPBC
Act's assessment and approval provisions (Australian DEE 2017b). The
turquoise parrot was not included on the List of Threatened Fauna
either because it was never nominated for consideration, or if it was
nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous scientific assessment
of the species' threat status (Australian DEE 2017b, unpaginated).
Additionally, the 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett
and Crowley 2000b, p. 345) listed it nationally as ``Near Threatened,''
but this designation was removed in the 2010 Action Plan for Australian
Birds, which noted that the population was too large to be considered
``near threatened'' and that there was no evidence of a recent decline
(Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). As such, there is no national recovery
plan for the turquoise parrot, though recommended actions were outlined
for the species in the 2000 Action Plan (Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p.
345).
At the state level, the species is currently listed as ``Rare'' in
Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and ``Threatened'' in
Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG; FFG 2016,
p. 3). It was subsequently recommended for downlisting to ``Near
Threatened'' by an FFG Scientific Advisory Committee in 2013; however,
it is still officially ``Threatened'' in Victoria (Vic DSE 2013, p. 13;
NSW 2009, unpaginated). In 2009, the New South Wales Scientific
Committee determined that the turquoise parrot met criteria for listing
as ``Vulnerable'' under the New South Wales Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995 (NSW 2009, unpaginated), and this classification
is still in place (BLA 2016b, unpaginated).
Additionally, portions of suitable habitat for the turquoise parrot
are protected. For example, about 8 percent of Queensland is now in the
Natural Reserve System that includes government reserves, indigenous
protected areas, private protected areas, and jointly managed protected
areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Approximately 9 percent of New South
Wales and 18 percent of Victoria are also part of this Natural Reserve
System (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated). Because we do not reliably know the
degree to which the Natural Reserve System protects the turquoise
parrot and its habitat, we did not rely on these protected areas in our
determination of whether or not the parrot meets the definition of
threatened or endangered.
Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot
The following sections provide a summary of the past, current, and
potential future stressors for the turquoise parrot and its habitats.
In cases where the stressors were common to both the scarlet-chested
and turquoise parrots, we discuss potential effects to both parrot
species in the section for the scarlet-chested parrot for the sake of
efficiency.
Land clearing--See Land clearing in Australia under Factors
Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Land Clearing and the Turquoise Parrot
Typical turquoise parrot habitat is hill country including
woodlands, open forest, and timbered grasslands (Collar 2016b,
unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286). Since the 1970s, southeastern
Queensland and northern New South Wales have experienced the greatest
rates of deforestation in Australia, and Victoria is now the most
deforested state or territory in Australia (Bradshaw 2012, p. 109).
Unlike New South Wales and Victoria, most of the land clearing in
Queensland has occurred in the last 50 years (Bradshaw 2012, p. 113;
McAlpine et al. 2009, p. 22) with high rates of vegetation loss in the
last several decades (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 233). Clearing
was predominantly in central and southern regions where native forests
and woodlands were converted for intensive cropping and improved
pastures for cattle (McAlpine et al. 2009, p. 23). In 2004, Queensland
enacted clearance restrictions to phase out broad-scale clearing by the
end of 2006 (Lindenmayer and Burgman 2005, p. 233). As of 2014, about
8.16 percent of Queensland's jurisdiction was in protected areas (CAPAD
2014, unpaginated).
Victoria is heavily cleared (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw
2012, p. 114), having lost an estimated 66 percent of its native
vegetation (Victoria Department of Sustainability and the Environment
2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, pp. 113-114). Most of the clearance
occurred prior to the 1890s when the wheat and livestock industries
were developing (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114).
Land clearance was estimated to have continued at a slow, steady rate
of about 1 percent per year until 1987, when anti-clearing legislation
was introduced (Lindenmayer 2007, as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 114).
Despite this legislation, proportional clearance rates from 1995-2005
remained high and even increased near the end of this decade (Bradshaw
2012, p. 114). Although Victoria is now the most cleared of the three
states, it also contains the highest proportion of protected land. As
of 2014, about 17.63 percent of Victoria's jurisdiction was in
[[Page 16533]]
protected areas (CAPAD 2014, unpaginated).
New South Wales was one of the first regions settled by Europeans
and generally has a higher human population than other parts of
Australia. Most of the land clearing and damage to forest ecosystems
happened during the nineteenth century (Bradshaw 2012, p. 112). More
than 50 percent of the forest and woodland in New South Wales has been
cleared (Lunney 2004, Olsen et al. 2005 and Johnson et al. 2007 as
cited in NSW 2009, unpaginated). As of 2014, about 9.10 percent of New
South Wales' jurisdiction was in protected areas (CAPAD 2014,
unpaginated).
Forest fragmentation as a result of land clearing can also affect
the turquoise parrot, which is mostly sedentary but capable of short-
distance dispersal (generally less than 10 km (6.2 mi)) along treed
corridors) (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 16).
Therefore, gaps between forest remnants may cause fragmentation of
turquoise parrot populations in heavily cleared landscapes (NSW 2009,
unpaginated).
Altered fire regimes--see Fire in Australia under Factors Affecting
the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Altered Fire Regimes and the Turquoise Parrot
Prescribed fire and timber-cutting have negatively affected the
turquoise parrot and its habitat (NSW 2009, unpaginated). Both
practices have the potential to cause the loss of hollow-bearing trees,
which can be a limiting habitat feature for the turquoise parrot (NSW
2014b). Similarly, firewood collection and selective removal of dead
wood and dead trees reduce the availability of nest hollows (NSW 2014b,
unpaginated; NSW 2009, unpaginated).
In summary, land clearing for agriculture in combination with other
stressors (i.e., drought, trapping) was likely a significant cause of
the population crash between 1880 and 1920. While most of the land
clearing occurred in the late 18th and the early 19th centuries, more
recent forest clearance rates are of concern for the three states that
support the turquoise parrot. Forest fragmentation as a result of
clearing has the potential to isolate turquoise parrot populations,
which are mostly sedentary but capable of short-distance dispersal (and
population expansion) along treed corridors. Management actions such as
prescribed fire, selective logging, and reforestation should be
carefully applied and adapted to benefit parrot habitat. Managing for
protection of nesting hollows is particularly important.
The advent of anti-clearing legislation since approximately the
1990s (Bradshaw 2012, p. 116) and the growing proportion of lands in
protected areas are positive signs for further turquoise parrot
recovery, but researchers caution that conservation efforts such as
reforestation should be carefully planned and implemented at the local
level. The turquoise parrot population has continued to recover since
the historic crash and through periods of subsequent deforestation,
with no evidence of recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). While
habitat destruction and modification is a likely stressor for the
turquoise parrot, we do not consider it to be a major stressor to the
species throughout its entire range now or in the foreseeable future.
Removal From the Wild for Food
About a century ago, turquoise parrots were shot for food for pie-
filling (BLA 2016b, unpaginated; Seth-Smith 1909 as cited in Higgins
1999, p. 576) and, in some cases, were indiscriminately shot (Tzaros
2016, unpaginated). These are no longer reported as stressors for the
turquoise parrot.
Illegal collection and trade--see Illegal collection and trade (for
both scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots) under Factors Affecting the
Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Levels of Legal International Trade (for the Turquoise Parrot)
Between 1980 and 2014, there were very few wild turquoise parrots
in trade. There were 44,244 turquoise parrot specimens exported in
international trade (27,248 recorded imports). More than 99 percent of
these were captive-bred live parrots (UNEP 2016b).
In summary, use as food and poaching for the pet trade were noted
as stressors in the past. Presently, poaching may be occurring at a low
level that is not likely to affect wild populations. We are not aware
of any information indicating that overutilization for recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes are current stressors to the
turquoise parrot.
Disease--See Disease (for scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots)
under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Predation--See Predation from non-native cats and foxes in
Australia under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Predation and the Turquoise Parrot
The turquoise parrot nests in tree hollows close to the ground,
making it vulnerable to predation from introduced terrestrial predators
such as feral cats and European red foxes (Rowden pers. comm. 2016; NSW
2014b and 2009, unpaginated; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, pp. 3, 26).
Feral cat control and feral predator control are identified objectives
in management plans for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2014b, unpaginated;
Garnett and Crowley 2000b, p. 345; Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 26).
Both feral cats and foxes were predators of the turquoise parrot at
Chiltern in Victoria in the 1980s (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 26),
and more fox control was likely needed in the area at that time (Quin
in litt. 2016). Additionally, the turquoise parrot and the scarlet-
chested parrot were assessed as ``high risk'' from these predators
within the rangeland environment in the Western Division of New South
Wales based on variables such as predator density, body weight, habitat
use, and behavior (Dickman et al. 1996, p. 249). However, we could not
find recent information regarding the predation rate of feral cats or
foxes on the turquoise parrot.
Foxes dig at active turquoise parrot nests and usually take the
female and the nestlings, if they can be reached. Some predation of
turquoise parrots by foxes can be mitigated by physically reinforcing
degraded natural nest hollows to avoid digging out of these nests by
foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). Similarly, placement of
artificial nesting material higher in the host tree can generally keep
them out of reach of foxes (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 22). There are
ongoing efforts to improve turquoise parrot nesting habitat,
particularly in Victoria (see Competition for nesting hollows, below).
Competition for Nesting Hollows
Competition for suitable nest hollows has the potential to limit
reproductive success of the turquoise parrot by limiting the number of
pairs that can breed, or by causing nest mortality as a result of
competitive interactions. All but four species of Australian parrots
are dependent on tree hollows for nesting (Forshaw 1990, p. 58).
Competition for nest hollows (both intraspecific and interspecific) was
noted at Chiltern in Victoria, where limited nest hollows likely
limited reproductive success of the turquoise parrot (Quin and Baker-
Gabb 1993, p. 12). National legislation, policy, and strategic
management plans are in place to protect hollow-bearing trees in
Australia; however, prioritization and implementation of actions at the
local level may be limited or lacking (Treby et al. 2014, entire).
[[Page 16534]]
Placing artificial nest hollows in areas that appear to be nest-
hollow limited seems to be successful, and programs that construct and
strategically place artificial nests are supported at the State level
and appear to be ongoing. For example, early experimental efforts to
hollow-out naturally occurring stumps in the Warby Ranges (in Victoria,
near Chiltern) were successful but ended in the 1990s (Tzaros 2016,
unpaginated). In 2010, Monash University researchers placed artificial
nests around the Warby-Ovens State Park (also near Chiltern), and the
hollows were readily occupied by turquoise parrots (Tzaros 2016,
unpaginated). More recent efforts to improve habitat for turquoise
parrots include those of two land-care networks in northeastern
Victoria. The Broken Boosey Conservation Management Network has made
and installed 200 potential nest sites for the species (Tzaros 2016,
unpaginated), and the Ovens Land-care Network received a $4,600 AUS
($3,525 US) grant that aims to raise awareness of the increasing risk
to hollow-dependent species by the non-native Indian (common) myna bird
(Acridotheres tristis) (Quin in litt. 2016; Tzaros 2016, unpaginated).
Competition for Food
Grazing by livestock can directly affect available food resources
for the turquoise parrot (NSW 2009, unpaginated). As livestock grazing
ended in some protected areas of Victoria, numbers of turquoise parrots
in those areas increased (Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 7; Juniper and
Parr 1989, p. 366; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), indicating that a reduction
in grazing may benefit the species' recovery.
Competition for food by grazing sheep, cattle, and European wild
rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) was noted as a possible contributing
factor in the crash of the turquoise parrot population between 1880 and
1920 (Collar 2016b, unpaginated, Quin and Baker-Gabb 1993, p. 3).
Around the time of the parrot's population crash, rabbit numbers
swelled to plague proportions, forcing some farmers out of business
(Tzaros 2016, unpaginated). Turquoise parrot habitat and food sources
were undoubtedly adversely affected by this plague, but the degree to
which they were affected is unknown. Application of Myxomatosis, a
disease that is spread by mosquitoes and affects only rabbits, has
succeeded in keeping rabbit numbers at approximately 5 percent their
former high abundance in wetter areas (Australian DSEWP&C 2011,
unpaginated). Current rates of competition between rabbits and
turquoise parrots for food are not well understood but are assumed to
be much less than they were a century ago.
In summary, disease, predation, and competition are all potential
stressors for the turquoise parrot. Although PBFD has not been
confirmed in the turquoise parrot, it is likely susceptible to the
disease at some level. We are not aware of other diseases or pathogens
that affect the wild population. Predation and competition may be
occurring at low levels, but there are active plans in place to control
feral cats, foxes, and rabbits. Use of artificial nests may be helping
to mitigate fox predation and competition for nest hollows where this
is a limiting habitat feature. While disease, predation, and
competition may be affecting the turquoise parrot at low levels, they
do not appear to be significant stressors to the species because
populations of the turquoise parrot are stable with an estimated 20,000
individuals and may be increasing in some areas.
Existing regulatory mechanisms--see Existing regulatory mechanisms
(for both scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots) under Factors
Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
In this section, we reviewed the existing regulatory mechanisms
governing collection and trade of wild turquoise parrots. As described
above, the EPBC Act (which controls commercial export), the Lacey Act,
CITES, and the WBCA all provide protection to turquoies parrots that
minimize or eliminate threats from trade to the species. As discussed
under the other sections in Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot, we
do not find major stressors adversely affecting the species or its
habitat. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the regulating
mechanisms addressing these potential stressors are adequate at
protecting the species at a domestic and global level.
Climate change--see Global climate change and Climate change in
Australia under Factors Affecting the Scarlet-Chested Parrot, above.
Climate Change and the Turquoise Parrot
Based on the information presented in Climate change in Australia
above, a summary of climate patterns over the last century, within the
known range of the turquoise parrot includes: (1) Increased average
temperature of 1.0 [deg]C (1.8 [deg]F) with pronounced and rapid
warming in eastern Australia since the 1950s (Nicholls 2006 as cited in
Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (2) increased frequency of hot days and warm
nights (Deo 2011 as cited in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); (3) decreased
rainfall in the southeastern regions (Nicholls and Lavery 1992 as cited
in Bradshaw 2012, p. 116); and (4) increased annual total rainfall of
approximately 15 percent in New South Wales and Victoria (Hughes 2003,
p. 424). Similarly, a summary of climate projections for areas within
the known range of the turquoise parrot includes: (1) Temperature
increase of 1-5 [deg]C (1.8-9 [deg]F) (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41); (2)
increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights (Stokes et al.
2008, p. 41); (3) a large range of uncertainty for rainfall, but (using
median rainfall) a general pattern of drying, with less rain in the
spring and winter in the south, and increased intensity of rain (Stokes
et al. 2008, p. 41); and (4) increased frequency and intensity of
drought (up to 40 percent in eastern areas by 2070) (Stokes et al.
2008, p. 41).
Climate change is projected to affect pasture habitat used by the
turquoise parrot. Rainfall is expected to be the dominant influence on
pasture growth; fewer, more intense rain events are anticipated as well
as (from year to year) more frequent droughts (Stokes et al. 2008, p.
41). Increased temperatures could benefit pasture growth and growing
seasons in the cooler southern climates, but depletion of moisture in
the soil due to this growth might adversely affect spring pasture
growth (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 41).
Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) will affect rangeland
function, with a projected increase in pasture production but potential
loss in forage quality (e.g., declines in forage protein content)
(Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42). Fire danger will increase over much of
Australia (Hughes 2003, p. 427). Increased pasture growth will produce
heavier fuel loads (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42; Hughes 2003, p. 427).
The risk of wildfires could increase and make prescribed burns more
difficult to manage (Stokes et al. 2008, p. 42).
Projections for more droughts could also negatively affect the
turquoise parrot. A recent study analyzed the capacity of woodland bird
species in north-central Victoria to resist the pressures of extended
drought (i.e., the 13-year ``Millennium drought'' or the ``Big Dry'')
and then recover once drought conditions abated (i.e., the 2-year ``Big
Wet'') (Bennet et al. 2014, entire). Results indicated a substantial
decline (42-62 percent) in the reporting rates of bird species between
the early and late surveys in the Big Dry (Bennet et al. 2014, pp.
1321, 1326).
Additionally, a recent climate-change-adaptation model using a
``Business as Usual'' projection (i.e., the ``worst-case'' scenario
with increasing greenhouse gasses through time), predicted that the
[[Page 16535]]
distribution of climate, similar to that currently used by the species,
may contract by approximately one half to the southern part of its
current range (i.e., dropping out of Queensland but remaining in
portions of New South Wales and Victoria) by 2085 (Garnett et al.
2013c, interactive model results). Although the model does well to
incorporate species-specific traits, it also includes a number of
uncertainties that may limit its predictive power (Garnett et al. 2013,
pp. 76-77). Basic model assumptions such as that trends into the future
will follow simple linear extrapolations of existing relationships, and
assumptions regarding (scaled down) projected climate change itself,
may limit its accuracy (Garnett et al. 2013, pp. 76-77). Although there
is much uncertainty in these trends (given the variability in the
existing climate and uncertainties in modeling), effects from climate
change may rise to the level of a stressor in the next 50 years based
on our current knowledge (Garnett in litt. 2016b).
Potential responses and adaptability of the parrot to the projected
effects from climate change are difficult to predict. Since the parrot
is mainly resident, it is not known if it would relocate if local
conditions degrade (e.g., drought); however, one group of turquoise
parrots did move into an area of central Victoria during the mid-1990s,
probably in response to drought conditions elsewhere at this time (del
Hoyo, p. 383; Quin and Reid 1996, p. 250).
In summary, other than the projected increases in temperature and
CO2 levels, there is a relatively high level of uncertainty
associated with other projected climate change variables (particularly
patterns of rainfall) for Australia and across the occupied range of
the turquoise parrot. These uncertainties are a component of the
climate-change-adaptation model for the turquoise parrot. Climate
distribution modeling and a study of declines in woodland birds over a
recent and extended drought period indicate that effects from climate
change have the potential to become a stressor for parrots in the next
50 years (Bennet et al. 2014, pp. 1321, 1326; Garnett et al. 2013c,
interactive model results). However, we found no information indicating
that climate change is currently affecting the turquoise parrot
specifically, coupled with the fact that it has shown some adaptability
to drought conditions in the past. Stress to the species from climate
change will likely occur within the next 50 years, but climate change
variables in the area occupied by the parrot and the parrot's response
to these variables are currently mostly speculative, and we cannot
conclude that climate change is significant enough to result in the
species being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information. All substantive
information was incorporated into the status reviews for each species
and into this final rule, as appropriate. The following section
summarizes issues and information we consider to be substantive from
peer review and public comments, and provides our responses.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the scarlet-chested parrot and the turquoise parrot and their habitats,
biological needs, and threats. In all, we contacted eight individuals
seeking peer review for the scarlet-chested parrot and five individuals
for the turquoise parrot. We found that there were a limited number of
individuals who had worked with these parrot species because: (1) They
are not listed species in Australia and thus have not been the subject
of many dedicated studies, and (2) scarlet-chested parrots are often
difficult to find and study due to their nomadic behavior and irruptive
species population ecology.
We received responses from three peer reviewers for the scarlet-
chested parrot and two peer reviewers for the turquoise parrot. We
reviewed all the peer reviewers' comments for substantive issues and
information regarding the status of and threats to these species. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with our summaries and conclusions
regarding these species and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions. We incorporated all peer reviewer
information into the status reviews for each species, and the majority
of the information provided in the peer review is also incorporated
into this final rule, where appropriate. Status reviews and peer
reviewer comments for the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrot are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting
documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0176.
Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on our evaluation of the
effects of altered fire regimes on the scarlet-chested parrot. They
relayed that there is new information that altered fire regimes affect
mallee shrublands used by the species and shared relevant literature.
Our Response: Based on these peer reviewers' comments and the
information provided, we updated the Altered fire regimes sections in
the scarlet-chested parrot status review and this final rule.
Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the scarlet-chested parrots
observed at Gluepot Reserve may not actually be a resident population.
Additionally, the same reviewer commented that, while the overlap of
Bourke's parrot with the scarlet-chested parrot is considerable, the
scarlet-chested parrot tends to be found at greater distances than the
Bourke's parrot from the pastoral (better-watered) country.
Our Response: We changed the text in the scarlet-chested parrot
status review to reflect: (1) Uncertainty regarding whether or not the
scarlet-chested parrots at Gluepot are resident; and (2) that the
scarlet-chested parrot tends to be found at greater distances than the
Bourke's parrot from the better-watered, pastoral areas.
Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the climate change section in
our status review for the scarlet-chested parrot contained outdated
information and shared relevant literature. The same peer reviewer
referred us to two publications that examine the capacity of woodland
birds (in dry woodlands and riparian areas in southeastern Australia)
to resist the pressures of drought and then recover once drought
conditions are lifted. He suggested that these publications indicate a
trend for long-term decline in the face of more frequent and extended
droughts in southern Australia as predicted by recent climate
modelling. A second peer reviewer referred us to a recent publication
and interactive model that allowed us to project potential future
reductions in ``climate space'' for both the scarlet-chested parrot and
the turquoise parrot.
Our Response: We reviewed the information provided and updated our
evaluation of climate change as a stressor to the scarlet-chested
parrot and its habitat. Further, in our review of the new material, we
found that one of the publications was also helpful in assessing
extended drought as a potential stressor to the turquoise parrot.
Therefore, we updated the Climate Change sections for both the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parrots in both status reviews and this final
rule.
Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the percentages of protected
lands
[[Page 16536]]
for the scarlet-chested parrot were outdated and did not reflect the
large proportion that is Aboriginal-held land.
Our Response: We found updated information for proportions of
protected land in the states and territories within the range of both
the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots and reflected these updates
in our estimates in both status reviews and this final rule.
Comment: One peer reviewer commented on distribution of the
turquoise parrot, relaying that: (1) There are parts of the historical
range in Victoria where the species has not returned, and (2) a small
population of the species occurs at Bunyip State Park in West
Gippsland, Victoria.
The same peer reviewer provided the following observations
regarding the population of turquoise parrots near Chiltern in
northeastern Victoria: (1) The numbers of turquoise parrots currently
in this area appear significantly fewer than the numbers that were
there during the late 1980s to the early 1990s; (2) the decrease in
numbers is likely due to a decrease in grass abundance either from the
Millennium drought or an increase in herbivore abundance, or both; and
(3) more fox control was likely needed in this area in the late 1980s.
Lastly, this peer reviewer provided information on two ongoing
land-care networks that are working to improve turquoise parrot habitat
in northeastern Victoria and commented that more intensive surveys are
needed to determine population size of the turquoise parrot in all the
regions of Victoria where the turquoise parrot is found.
Our Response: We added information about turquoise parrots in
Victoria to the turquoise parrot status review and this final rule,
where appropriate: (1) The decreases at Chiltern and likely causes; (2)
the small population at Bunyip State Park; (3) the land-care networks;
and (4) the recommendation for more extensive surveys.
Public Comments
We published a proposed rule to remove the scarlet-chested and
turquoise parakeets from the List on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52169),
and we requested that all interested parties submit written comments at
that time. Additionally, because considerable time had passed since the
2003 proposal, we published a reopening of the public comment period in
January 2016, which closed on February 22, 2016 (81 FR 3373, January
21, 2016). We took this action to ensure that we sought, received, and
made our decision based on the best scientific and commercial
information available on these species and their status and threats, in
order to determine whether removing these species from the List is
warranted. Comments summarized below are from our reopening of the
public comment period in January 2016 (81 FR 3373).
We received 18 public comments relating to the proposed delisting
of scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets during the public comment
period. More detailed information about the comments we received and
our responses are below.
Comment: Several commenters noted that the Act placed restrictions
on trade in captive-bred individuals that have limited imports into the
United States and, by extension, the genetic diversity of U.S. captive-
bred populations.
Our Response: Although we considered captive individuals in our
review of both the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots, these
comments fall outside the scope of our analysis. Removal of the
scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets from the List will eliminate
the need for an import permit under the Act. Trade in captive-bred
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots will still be regulated under
CITES, and, to date, import of captive-bred scarlet-chested and
turquoise parrots into the United States is currently allowed under the
WBCA Approved List (50 CFR 15.33) without requiring a permit.
Comment: Several commenters stated that more information is needed
on the status of populations, or that conservation measures were needed
for these species before they can be removed from the List.
Our Response: We have reviewed the status of and threats to both
parrots, and the best available scientific and commercial information
indicates that populations of the scarlet-chested parrot presently
appear to be stable, with no evidence of decline in the last 20 years,
and populations of the turquoise parrot are stable and may be
increasing in some areas. Populations of both parrots are doing well
despite the stressors noted in the Factors Affecting the Scarlet-
chested Parrot and Factors Affecting the Turquoise Parrot sections,
above. Although the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots are not
included in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna, Australia
prohibits exports of wild specimens of these species under the EPBC
Act, and removal of these species from the wild is strictly controlled.
Additionally, there are numerous ongoing conservation efforts in
Australia by Federal and state governments, indigenous peoples, and
private organizations and landowners that likely benefit these species
including, but not limited to: (1) Protected areas; (2) recent anti-
clearing legislation; (3) protections and initiatives for nest hollows;
(4) non-native predator and competitor control programs (e.g., feral
cats, red foxes, rabbits); and (5) programs for construction and
placement of artificial nest hollows for the turquoise parrot.
Comment: Two commenters expressed their view that our listing
proposal was procedurally invalid under the Act because finalizing a
12-year-old proposed delisting rule violates section 4(b)(6) and
section 4(c) of the Act, which require that the Service finalize any
proposed rule within 1 year of publication of the proposed rule unless
narrow exceptions apply. These commenters opined that the Act requires
the Service to withdraw the proposed rule if those exceptions do not
apply.
Our Response: We disagree. The Service's proposal has not been
invalidated, and with this final rule, all procedural requirements
under section 4(b) of the Act have been met. Further, consistent with
our regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(3), the Act does
not allow for withdrawal of a proposed listing determination solely
because of the passage of time; any withdrawal must be based upon a
finding that the available evidence does not justify the action
proposed by the rule. Additionally, as explained above, the purpose of
the scientific review under section 4(c) of the Act is to ensure that
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife accurately reflects the
most current status information for each listed species. In our 2000
review, we requested comments and the most current scientific or
commercial information available on these species, and based on that
review, we reevaluated the listing of the scarlet-chested parrot and
the turquoise parrot.
On September 2, 2003, we published our review of the status of
these species and a proposed rule (68 FR 52169) to remove the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parakeets from the List under the Act because the
endangered designation no longer correctly reflected the current
conservation status of these birds, as the best available information
indicated that they had recovered. We explained that our review of the
best available information showed that the wild populations of these
species were stable with more than 20,000 turquoise parakeets and
10,000 scarlet-chested parakeets found throughout their range.
Furthermore, trade in wild-caught specimens was strictly limited, and
the species were protected through domestic regulation within the range
[[Page 16537]]
country (Australia), as well as through additional national and
international treaties and laws.
On January 21, 2016, because considerable time had passed since the
2003 proposal, we published the reopening of the public comment period
on our proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets
from the List (81 FR 3373). We took these actions to determine whether
removing these species from the List is still warranted, and to ensure
that we sought, received, and made our final decision based on the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding these species
and their status and threats. This final rule is based on the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding these species
and includes information summarized from status reviews we conducted in
2016-2017 for the scarlet-chested and the turquoise parrots. These
status reviews are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as supporting documentation for Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176. Sections from the status reviews were added (in part or
entirely) to the preamble to this final rule. These new sections in the
preamble are updates or additions to information that was presented in
the 2003 proposal to remove the scarlet-chested and turquoise parakeets
from the list (68 FR 52169, September 2, 2003).
Finding
Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered
or threatened due to any one or a combination of the five threat
factors identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). We examined the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by the species. We reviewed
information available in our files and other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized species and
habitat experts and representatives of the range country (Australia).
Scarlet-Chested Parrot
We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the
species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there
might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (e.g.,
increased fire frequency and potential decline in nesting hollows).
This finding constitutes our cumulative-effects analysis. In the
discussions above, we evaluated the individual effects of the following
potential stressors to the scarlet-chested parrot: Land clearing and
altered fire regimes (Factor A); limited nest hollows (Factor A);
illegal collection and trade (Factor B); Psittacine beak and feather
disease (Factor C); predation from non-native species (Factor C);
competition for nest hollows (Factor C); effects from small population
size (Factor E); and effects from climate change (Factor E). Although
one or some of these stressors may be acting on the species in some
manner, we found no data to indicate that these stressors, individually
or cumulatively, are causing the species to be in danger of extinction,
either now or in the foreseeable future. In the face of these
stressors, the population appears to be stable, with no evidence of
decline in the last 20 years. We have concluded that this stability is
not due to listing under the Act; thus, we do not expect declines due
to the removal of the protections provided by the listing under the
Act.
The Australian Government does not include the scarlet-chested
parrot in the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017,
unpaginated) either because it was never nominated for consideration,
or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous
scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE
2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed
it nationally as ``Least Concern'' and then did not list it in the 2010
Action Plan for Australian Birds. As such, there is no national
recovery plan for the scarlet-chested parrot.
The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as ``Least Concern.''
Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited
and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic
regulation in Australia and through additional national and
international treaties and laws.
As with all species, the scarlet-chested parrot is subject to some
stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and
conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not
having a significant impact on the species. This determination is
evidenced by the apparent stability of the population of the species
for the last 20 years. Therefore we conclude, based on our review of
the best available scientific and commercial data, that the scarlet-
chested parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any of
the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or
cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that
stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause
significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or
otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Turquoise Parrot
We consider cumulative effects to be the potential stressors to the
species in totality and combination, and the degree to which there
might be any synergistic effects among any of the stressors (e.g., nest
predation by foxes and the loss of nesting hollows); this finding
constitutes our cumulative-effects analysis. In the discussions above,
we evaluated the individual effects of the following potential
stressors to the turquoise parrot: Land clearing and forest
fragmentation (Factor A); altered fire regimes (Factor A); limited nest
hollows (Factor A); removal from the wild for food (Factor B); illegal
collection and trade (Factor B); Psittacine beak and feather disease
(Factor C); predation from non-native species (Factor C); competition
for food and nest hollows (Factor C); and effects from climate change
(Factor E). Although one or some of these stressors may be acting on
the turquoise parrot in some manner, we found no data to indicate that
these stressors, individually or cumulatively, are causing the species
to be in danger of extinction, either now or in the foreseeable future.
In the face of these stressors, the population appears to be stable and
may be increasing in some areas.
The Australian Government does not include the turquoise parrot in
the EPBC Act's List of Threatened Fauna (Australian DEE 2017,
unpaginated), either because it was never nominated for consideration,
or if it was nominated, it was found ineligible by a rigorous
scientific assessment of the species' threat status (Australian DEE
2017b, unpaginated). The 2000 Action Plan for Australian Birds listed
it nationally as ``Near Threatened'' but then did not list it in the
2010 Action Plan for Australian Birds because the population was too
large to be considered ``near threatened'' and there was no evidence of
a recent decline (Garnett et al. 2011, p. 429). As such, there is no
national recovery plan for the turquoise parrot.
The species is listed on the IUCN Red List as ``Least Concern.''
Domestic and international trade in wild-caught specimens is limited
and strictly regulated. The species is protected through domestic
regulation in
[[Page 16538]]
Australia and through additional national and international treaties
and laws.
As with all species, the turquoise parrot is subject to some
stressors. As discussed above, however, we reviewed those stressors and
conclude that individually and cumulatively they are currently not
having a significant impact on the species. This is evidenced by the
apparent stable population of approximately 20,000 individuals with
increases reported in some areas. Therefore, we conclude, based on our
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that the
turquoise parrot is not currently in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range. In addition, we considered whether the impact of any
of the stressors is likely to significantly increase, individually or
cumulatively, within the foreseeable future. We conclude, based on our
review of the best available scientific and commercial data, that
stressors are not likely to increase such that they would cause
significant population declines within the foreseeable future, or
otherwise to result in the species becoming in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available and determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots
are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all their respective
ranges, nor are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
Having examined the status of the scarlet-chested and turquoise
parrots throughout all of their ranges, we next examine whether these
species are in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in a
significant portion of their respective ranges. Under the Act and our
implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species''
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.''
We published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species,
respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the
species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and
no SPR analysis is required. If the species is neither in danger of
extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, we
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we
list the species as an endangered or a threatened species,
respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not
warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2)
the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely
to become so within the foreseeable future.
We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is
not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species
are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet
the biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of
that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will
not warrant further consideration. If we identify any portions that may
be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are
indeed met. To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened
throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that
we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout
its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
Scarlet-Chested Parrot
Applying the process described above, we evaluated portions of the
scarlet-chested parrot's range that may be significant, and examined
whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that
would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The range
available to the scarlet-chested parrot is very large (262,000 km\2\
(101,159 mi\2\); BLI 2016a, unpaginated). Within this range, the
[[Page 16539]]
Great Victoria Desert, located in southwestern Australia, may be of
biological or conservation importance to the scarlet-chested parrot,
because the species is primarily concentrated in the better vegetated
areas of this region (BLI 2016a, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
366). Therefore, the Great Victoria Desert has the potential to be of
greater biological or conservation importance than other areas and may
constitute a significant portion of the parrot's range.
We next examined whether any stressors are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in this portion. We
examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire
regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine
beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species,
competition for food and nest hollows, small population size, and
effects from climate change. All these stressors appeared to be uniform
across the range of the species, with the exception of potential
effects from climate change (See Climate change and the scarlet-chested
parrot above). A recent climate-change-adaptation model indicated a
long-term range contraction to the southern portion of its range (to an
area that includes the Great Victoria Desert) (Garnett et al. 2013b,
interactive model results). However, given the uncertainty in the
modelling of future climate scenarios, particularly patterns of
precipitation, we are unable to reliably discern if the areas projected
to be lost will result in any significant threat. While regions of the
Great Victoria Desert may be significant, information and analyses
indicate that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or
become so in the foreseeable future in this portion.
All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the
species. The scarlet-chested parrot is adapted to arid landscapes and
able to travel great distances. The population is not known to be
fragmented (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 57) and appears to be stable, with
no evidence of decline in the last 20 years (BLI 2016a, unpaginated;
BLI 2012a, p. 4). Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range.
Turquoise Parrot
We evaluated portions of the turquoise parrot's range that may be
significant, and examined whether any threats are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate that those portions of the
range may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. The turquoise parrot occurs in many parts of
eastern and southeastern Australia, particularly the foothills of the
Great Dividing Range (NSW 2009, unpaginated; Garnett and Crowley 2000b,
p. 345; Juniper and Parr 1988, p. 365). The Great Dividing Range is
formed from multiple mountain ranges that dominate the eastern
Australia landmass. The species' distribution is not continuous but
rather occurs in patches of suitable habitat throughout this broader
range (Tzaros 2016, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 286), and about 90
percent of the population is thought to occur in New South Wales (NSW
2009, unpaginated). We did not identify any natural divisions within
the range that may be of biological or conservation importance with the
exception that the central portion of the parrot's current range (in
New South Wales) could be considered significant based on the
concentration of parrots there.
We next examined whether any stressors are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
We examined potential stressors, including land clearing, altered fire
regimes, limited nest hollows, illegal collection and trade, Psittacine
beak and feather disease, predation from non-native species competition
for food and nest hollows, and effects from climate change. All these
stressors appeared to be uniform across the range of the species, with
the exception of potential effects from climate change (See Climate
change and the turquoise parrot above).
A recent climate-change-adaptation model indicated a long-term
range contraction by about one half to the southern part of its current
range (i.e., dropping out of Queensland but remaining in portions of
New South Wales and Victoria) by 2085 (Garnett et al. 2013c,
interactive model results). This reduced climate space includes
developed regions near Sydney and in and around Melbourne (Garnett et
al. 2013c, interactive model results). Currently, approximately 90
percent of the population is distributed in eastern portions of New
South Wales. Based on the modeling, the species would experience a
reduction in climate space in New South Wales that is approximately a
little more than one half of what is currently modeled. The modeled
climate space in Victoria may improve somewhat with more areas becoming
suitable for the parrot. However, given the uncertainty in the
modelling of future climate scenarios, particularly patterns of
precipitation, we are unable to reliably discern if the areas projected
to be lost will result in any significant threat. While areas in New
South Wales may be significant to the parrot, information and analyses
indicate that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or
become so in the foreseeable future in this portion.
All other stressors appear to be uniform across the range of the
species. The population of the turquoise parrot now numbers more than
20,000 individuals. The population appears to be stable and may be
increasing in some areas. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range.
Summary
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available and have determined that the scarlet-chested and turquoise
parrots are no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or
significant portions of their respective ranges, nor are they likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. As a consequence of this
determination, we are removing these species from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of the Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the scarlet-
chested and turquoise parakeets from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. As of the effective date of this rule (see DATES),
the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through sections 7, 8 and 9, no longer apply to these
species. The scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots will remain
protected under the provisions of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). To date, the
scarlet-chested and turquoise parrots remain on the Approved List of
captive-bred species under the WBCA, which allows import or export of
captive-bred individuals of these species without a WBCA permit.
[[Page 16540]]
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with
listing or reclassification of a species as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0176 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
This final rule was authored by staff of the Branch of Foreign
Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 15
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 15 and part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 15--WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.
0
2. Amend Sec. 15.33(a) by:
0
a. Amending the entries in the table for ``Neophema pulchella \1\
(Turquoise parrot.)'' and ``Neophema splendida \1\ (Scarlet-chested
parrot.)'' by removing the footnote superscripts; and
0
b. Revising footnote 1 following the table to read as follows:
Sec. 15.33 Species included in the approved list.
(a) * * *
\1\ Note: Permits are still required for this species under part
17 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
3. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entries for ``Parakeet,
scarlet-chested'' and ``Parakeet, turquoise'' under BIRDS in the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: March 3, 2017.
James W. Kurth
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-06663 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P